Kyotos doing well

Job

The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
21,652
My feelings on the subject are old hat.

Of interest since coming into farce
Kyoto has cost us 18 billion dollars
and has slowed global warming by


0.000191053 °C

The official saving expected by Kyoto and agreed by both sides of the argument is 0.07 of a degree by 2050

A 100 trillion dollars will be required to save 1 degree, thats the full GNP of the US over 100 years.
 

Job

The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
21,652
Regardless of globalwarming the south of the UK is sinking, so I hope you've got diving gear :p
 

Rookiescot

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Jan 16, 2004
Messages
816
So the message is .... the desertes get bigger but Northern Europe gets wetter but warmer?
Since it pisses down where I live every day ......My incentive is what ?


edit .. And the South of England can sink under the sea tomorrow ....makes no difference to me.

In fact .... less Tory voters so thats a good thing :)
 

Roadie

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Apr 20, 2004
Messages
949
Since i dont know how fast global warming is occouring, or how much a change in temprature of that magnitude effects the ecology and geography of the world i cant begin to wonder if its worth the cash spent on it.

Kyoto isnt just about global warming either.
 

Void959

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 19, 2004
Messages
887
Its only just come into force...

So its a bit early to start talking about its success/failure.
 

Tesla Monkor

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Jan 1, 2004
Messages
1,452
How can it be considered wrong to enfore rules that keep the planet habitable? o_O
 

Adianna

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
397
Tesla Monkor said:
How can it be considered wrong to enfore rules that keep the planet habitable? o_O
Well unless we find a way to transport 6 billion people to another habitable planet, which we won't within the next 50 years I suppose, well uhm... ask George W. Bush why doesn't agree...
 

Litmus

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 30, 2003
Messages
1,576
Adianna said:
Well unless we find a way to transport 6 billion people to another habitable planet, which we won't within the next 50 years I suppose, well uhm... ask George W. Bush why doesn't agree...
why use money to save the world when u can buy bombs with it?
 

Earl

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Feb 17, 2005
Messages
593
You forget.. if the kyoto treaty wasn't in place, we wouldn't just be saving a small small amount of temp, we would be activly pouring so much more of the substances into the air and causing the temp to rise even higher..
 

Job

The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
21,652
Everyone means well, and reducing c02 output isn't a bad thing, reducing pollution is a good thing, being more efficient is a good thing.

The huge buzzing fly in the ointmnet is NO-ONE knows whats causing global warming and any attempts to cure it are TOTAL guesswork.

Our grasp of the mechanics of it are as about as robust as our theories on interstellar gas clouds.

We could just as easily be making it worse as making it better.
 

Binky the Bomb

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Jan 31, 2004
Messages
1,897
We've had global warming for several million years. This is partially becasue were coming out of an ice age (and right back into a new one). It's one giant cycle of life and death, the dinosaurs copt for it, were next. Get used to it. I agree with all these energy saving ideas because it saves money, and recycling because 100 miles of grassy land is more preferable to 100 miles of rubbish tip land.

As for the ice caps melting, there giant sheets of solidified water, compressed on top of hundreds of thousands of other ice sheets. With so much weight and pressure involved, it was bound to happen eventually that they would break and collapse into the sea, reguardless of human intervention.

You hear the famous words "compared to a hundred years ago" when they make there statements, which is fine, if we asked about the weather in 1905. However, as the weather is never the same day to day, week to week, month to month, year to year, is seems a little stupid to compare the climate century to century. Not to mention thaqt volcanoes contrubute to global warming as well, and we've had a fair few inthe last century.... do you ever hear them mentioned when they make these comparisons? Are they mentioned on the carbon monoxide monitors?

I'm not saying that the human race is blameless for all the shit it's done, but you can't blame everything on us insane apes. You know, I feel much better after that.
 

Job

The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
21,652
Hee Hee as they say

Like this one about Canada.
They could save all the money they are going to have to spend on reducing CO2 output by just getting more firefighters.
There annual co2 levels ae much higher than stated cos of all the forest fires they have, just one fire could wipe out years of reductions.
The fires AREN'T taken into account for measurements.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom